-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
+1 on this suggested text.
Joe
Bob Hinden wrote:
> Olaf,
>> As I said in my comments to the list, I don't think the "what this is
> not text should be there".
>> My proposed changes based on this are below.
>> Bob
>>>> Please let me know if this does _not_ work and provide alternatives.
>>>> This issue needs closure.
>>>> --Olaf
>>>>>>>> -- start---
>>>> The third paragraph of the "Status of This Memo" will now include a
>> paragraph describing the type of review and exposure the document has
>> received. This is defined on a per-stream basis. From now on, these
>> paragraphs will be defined as part of RFC stream definitions.
>>>> The following texts may be updated if the stream definitions are
>> updated, but initial paragraphs for the existing streams are:
>>>> IETF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Engineering
>> Task Force (IETF). "
>>>> If there has been an IETF consensus call per IETF process, an
>> additional sentence should be added: "This document represents a
>> consensus of the IETF community. It has received public review
>> and has been approved for publication by the Internet Engineering
>> Steering Group."
>> I would add something like:
>> If this is an approved IETF standards track document, an
> additional
> sentence should be added: "This document is an IETF Standard."
>> The one that is an IETF standard should say so very clearly, as
> opposed to the ones that are not having to include the negative.
>>>> IAB Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Architecture
>> Board (IAB), and represents information that the IAB has deemed
>> valuable to provide for permanent record. This document has been
>> approved for publication by the IAB. It is not a product of the
>> IETF stream
>> and is therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet
>> Standard;
>> see section Section 2 of RFCXXXX."
>> s/ It is not a product of the IETF stream and is therefore not a
> candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see section Section 2 of
> RFCXXXX."/"/
>>>> IRTF Stream: "This document is a product of the Internet Research
>> Task Force (IRTF). The IRTF publishes the results of Internet-
>> related research and development activities. These results might
>> not be suitable for deployment. This document has been approved
>> for publication by the IRSG. It is not a product of the IETF
>> stream
>> and is therefore not a candidate for any level of Internet
>> Standard;
>> see section Section 2 of RFCXXXX."
>> s/ It is not a product of the IETF stream and is therefore not a
> candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see section Section 2 of
> RFCXXXX."/"/
>>>> In addition a sentence indicating the consensus base within the
>> IRTF may be added: "This RFC represents the consensus of the
>> <insert_name> Research Group of the Internet Research Task Force
>> (IRTF)." or alternatively "This RFC represents the individual
>> opinion(s) of one or more members of the <insert_name> Research
>> Group of the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)".
>>>> Independent Stream: "This document is a contribution to the RFC
>> Series, independently of any other RFC stream. The RFC Editor has
>> chosen to publish this document at its discretion and makes no
>> statement about its value for implementation or deployment. It
>> is not a product of the IETF stream and is therefore not a
>> candidate
>> for any level of Internet Standard; see section Section 2 of
>> RFCXXXX."
>> s/ It is not a product of the IETF stream and is therefore not a
> candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see section Section 2 of
> RFCXXXX."/"/
>>>> Note that standards track documents can only be published through
>> the IETF stream.
>> Therefore any non-IETF stream contains the following clarification:
>> It is not a product
>> of the IETF stream and is therefore not a candidate for any level of
>> Internet Standard". That sentence also implies that the document
>> has not been
>> approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering Group
>> after an IETF consensus
>> process."
>> Remove the above paragraph. I don't think it is necessary.
>>> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
>rfc-interest at rfc-editor.org>http://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAklDLHYACgkQE5f5cImnZrtuJQCfZ+cvI8GWEEhVyYJliRUZCAuu
5aIAn2+QMhSa8BkVLKTzW30fouAWcwkc
=YpAN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----